McKIVITZ v. Township of Stowe, 769 F. Supp. 2d 803

Plaintiffs Jeanne and Robert McKivitz own a single-family dwelling in Stowe Township (R-1) used as a purported three-quarter house for recovering addicts.
Township ordinances define rooming/boarding houses and require occupancy permits, with Ordinance No. 912 adopted July 10, 2007.
Township Ordinance Officer Savatt notified the McKivitzes in 2007 of violations for running a rooming house and for lacking a rental form; citations were issued but later dismissed.
Savatt denied a Certificate of Occupancy for the property as a three-quarter house, determining such use is not permitted in R-1; the McKivitzes appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board).
The Board affirmed Savatt’s denial, treating the appeal as an implicit variance request and denying it; the McKivitzes filed this civil action in state court and subsequently removed to federal court asserting FHA, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, Equal Protection and Due Process claims.
The court ultimately denied the McKivitzes’ partial summary judgment and granted the defendants’ summary judgment on all federal claims, declining supplemental jurisdiction for the state constitutional claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FHA exemptions apply to bar the claims	McKivitzes rely on §3603(b)(1) exemption for three or fewer single-family homes	Township argues exemption shields housing discrimination claims	Exemption not applicable; FHA claims survive
Do the McKivitzes have standing to pursue Rehabilitation Act/ADA claims	Association-like standing via impact on disability rights; plaintiffs allege own injuries	Association standing not permitted here	Plaintiffs have standing under Article III to pursue Rehabilitation Act/ADA claims
Whether the Zoning Board and Savatt enjoy quasi-judicial immunity	Claims against individuals in Board/Officer in personal capacity	Board/officer entitled to quasi-judicial immunity	Quasi-judicial immunity does not apply to official-capacity claims against the Board; suit proceeds against entity qua entity is not shielded
Whether the FHA/RA/ADA reasonable accommodation claims prevail	Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations necessary to house handicapped residents	Proposed accommodations would alter zoning and are unreasonable; no nexus shown between accommodations and equal opportunity	Defendants granted summary judgment on FHA/RA/ADA claims; plaintiffs’ initial burden not met; no factual nexus established

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1995) (limits on occupancy restrictions; family composition rules not to be equated with maximum occupancy)
Lakeside Resort Enterprises, LP v. Board of Supervisors of Palmyra Township, 455 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2006) (recovering addicts possibly handicapped; context for FHA coverage of group residences)
Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002) (requires nexus between requested accommodations and equal opportunity; burden shifts to gov't if initial showing made)
Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096 (3d Cir. 1996) (initial burden on plaintiff to show necessity of accommodation; equal opportunity limits)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection not apply to irrational prejudices in neutral zoning; rational basis standard)
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (equal protection not require accommodation mandates; class-of-one claims require irrational conduct)
Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d 680 (3d Cir. 1980) (due process review of zoning decisions; post-deprivation process suffices)
City of Chicago Heights v. United States District Court, 161 F. Supp. 2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (reasonable accommodations in zoning context (federal considerations))
Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 911 F. Supp. 918 (D. Md. 1995) (context for reasonable accommodations in housing and zoning)